Comments on: Protecting Tenant Rights In Foreclosure

By: And Justice For All

And Justice For All — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:19:00 +0000

To me, the fundamental issue here is justice and equity, two of the guiding principles embodied in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

As the Sheriff of the County in which Chicago lies, said, “It is not serving justice for us to evict a tenant who has stayed current with the rent and done nothing wrong.” Accordingly, he issued orders to all his deputies to refuse to carry out court eviction orders unless it can be verified that the evictees were in fact the defaulting parties on the mortgage that went to foreclosure.

There’s some practical, common-sense issues involved as well.

1. Just how sensible is it, in today’s economy, with the shrunken standard of living that most Americans are living with, to expect the tenant, (especially one who doesn’t learn of the foreclosure until the last minute) to have stayed current on their rent and utilities, AND been able to accumulate the moneys necessary to rent a new place and pay the movers?

IMO it’s total idiocy, and completely inhumane to boot, and I consider myself a right-wing, Constitution-loving Conservative.

2. How does it help the tenant to secure new living space when you deal a mortal blow to his creditworthiness by sticking him with a court-ordered EVICTION on his record.

This one really stinks because if there is one credit flaw that causes 99.99% of landlords REFUSE to rent to a new tenant, it is having been evicted from a former dwelling.

Those of you arguing against providing the well-performing tenant with additional protections in the case of their landlord being foreclosed, are basically taking a position that will make our nationwide HOMLESS CRISIS a hundredfold worse than it now is. Talk about spreading suffering and misery!!

How low can you get?

By: jryskmpr

jryskmpr — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:23:24 +0000

This legislation is a typically medieaval response to a 21-st century problem: housing. This keeps people in housing? B.S. Total b.s.

By: netdance

netdance — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:27:27 +0000

Dale -

Or else what? Is 60 days to quit really so onerous?

Want to discount the value of the home even more? Ask me to leave without returning my security deposit or giving me 30 days… Trust me, it’ll cost you more.

By: dale

dale — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:41:14 +0000

So under this law, we will have to discount the bid on a foreclosure by several thousand dollars to protect against the potential cost of being an accidental landlord.
Great Idea – the value of foreclosed homes will drop even more.

By: Richcinaz

Richcinaz — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:37:28 +0000

It would be really nice to see a law passed like this one in Arizona. I do think it should include some type of stipulation that the tenants are current so that they don’t scam the landlords.

By: netdance

netdance — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:40:33 +0000

It will, however, give sufficient protections that I’m actually thinking of renting a house for the first time in years.

Of particular interest are the 60 days notice to vacate (previously, you were out on forclosure day, even if you weren’t the one to get the first notice), and the return of your security.

If I get my deposit back, and get 60 days to move, that’s good enough. The previous plan, which was losing deposits and having to move with little notice, was a deal killer. Didn’t know about the utilities until now, but I don’t generally get places with utilities covered.

This isn’t a bill just to protect tenants – it protects SFR landlords, too, since I don’t know of ONE renter who was considering renting a SFR in this market under the old rules. Too risky.

Thanks for the notice, I just fired off a letter to my state senator to get off the ball and see this passes. We’ll see if that helps.